PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding is on file for US Patent 11611785, which was terminated. This means the patent's claims have not been formally challenged on the merits at the PTAB, leaving them untested.

IPR2025-01223 — Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v. Kourosh Soroushian

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-06-30
• Status: Terminated. The proceeding ended prematurely without a decision on the merits.
• Judge panel: Information on the specific judge panel is not publicly available at the current stage of termination.
• Petition grounds: Details of the specific claims challenged and prior art grounds are typically included in the petition. However, due to the procedural termination, an institution decision detailing these was not issued.
• Institution decision: This IPR was not instituted. It was terminated procedurally before a decision on institution.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): No Final Written Decision was issued as the proceeding was terminated prior to institution.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated on 2025-10-21, as indicated by the "last modified" date and "status: Terminated" in the provided data. Google Patents also notes "Procedural Termination". Procedural terminations often occur due to settlement between the parties or a joint request for adverse judgment before the Board reaches an institution decision. Specific settlement terms are typically confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit occurred as there was no Final Written Decision to appeal.
• Defensive value: This proceeding offers no direct defensive value in terms of claims being invalidated or sustained. The patent claims remain untested on the merits by the PTAB. However, the fact that a large entity like Amazon initiated an IPR suggests potential validity concerns that may have led to a private settlement.

Strategic summary

All claims of US Patent 116111785 remain UNTESTED by the PTAB on their merits, as the sole IPR filed against it (IPR2025-01223) was terminated before institution. Consequently, no claims have been canceled or formally sustained by a PTAB Final Written Decision.

The estoppel landscape remains largely open. Since IPR2025-01223 was terminated before institution, the petitioner (Amazon.com, Inc. et al.) and its privies are not subject to the statutory estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) regarding any grounds that were raised or could have been reasonably raised in the petition. This means that these grounds, and others, could potentially be asserted in future proceedings or litigation by the petitioner or other parties.

Regarding pattern signals, the patent has seen only one IPR, which was terminated. The petitioner was Amazon.com, Inc. et al., and the Google Patents entry indicates "Unified Patents PTAB Data" as the source for the petitioner, implying Unified Patents may have been involved in tracking or supporting the IPR. The "Procedural Termination" status suggests a resolution outside of a full PTAB trial, possibly a settlement. There is no evidence of the patent owner aggressively pursuing PTAB appeals, as no FWD was issued.

Recommended next steps

Given that IPR2025-01223 was terminated before a decision on the merits, all claims of US11611785 remain patentable as issued by the USPTO, subject to any challenges that may arise in district court litigation. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent today:

• Consider initiating a new IPR if robust prior art can be identified against the asserted claims. The prior termination of IPR2025-01223 does not create estoppel for future petitioners (unless they are in privity with Amazon.com, Inc. et al.).
• Thoroughly review the petition filed in IPR2025-01223 to understand the prior art and arguments Amazon intended to use. While not binding, it can provide valuable insights for a new challenge. Access to IPR2025-01223 documents can be sought via the USPTO PTAB E2E system.
• The patent has an anticipated expiration date of 2032-08-30.